4 ms·

I believe this study was about rider-only miles. The dog incident had a safety driver monitoring.

choppaface 3y ago
Sure but the news outlet headline is ‘only three minor incidents’ when in fact they killed a dog. It’s an act of not including all the information in a report about safety.
- persolb 3y ago
  That's an issue with the headline; not Waymo. The Waymo blog post is clear they are comparing their robo-only-driver with human-only-drivers.
  - choppaface 3y ago
    The Waymo blog post goes so far as to talk about human under-reporting of crashes, so it's only fair that Waymo call out their under-reporting of fatalities. It's suspect to claim the AI is better than the human when a notable fatality happened with a human behind the wheel of the exact same vehicle. Waymos have also hit people / bikers but magically the safety driver was always at fault.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      There's good reasons to count robo-only miles. The other measure is confounded in both directions: - Safety drivers prevent incidents - Safety drivers cause incidents Since the human+robo isn't the intended deployment mode, the only reason to count its numbers would be if there wasn't statistical power any other way. And that's no longer true.
      - choppaface 3y ago
        A robo-only study is fine, but it’s misleading to hide that the human-supervised treatment has injuries and fatalities.
        bombcar 3y ago
        I’m also unsure how a safety driver affects the robo driving unless it’s an entirely separate program or the safety driver is pressing the “damn the dogs full speed ahead” button. In my perhaps naive view a safety driver failing to act and a robo driver should be identical.
        mlyle 3y ago
        e.g. one of the most significant Waymo incidents in autonomous mode was a human driver falling asleep, bumping the gas pedal, and disengaging autonomy. Comparing robo-only miles has the advantage of not considering incidents like this, and also not considering incidents where the safety driver prevented harm. It also prevents accusations of "you're claiming human Waymo drivers caused these accidents that you've omitted and are lying" because then they're counting 100% of miles driven without humans in the car.
        choppaface 3y ago
        Waymo calls out the under-reporting of human accidents and yet that’s exactly what they’re doing by ignoring their safety driver incidents that include a fatality.
        mlyle 3y ago
        What safety driver accident included a fatality? You're not obscuring talking about the dog with "a fatality", are you? Egads. From looking at past Waymo data, you get similar numbers (a few more incidents, but a lot more miles driven) with safety drivers included. They're just noisier and more subject to dispute.
        choppaface 3y ago
        Exactly, the numbers are subject to dispute, so this is a press release and the whole dataset is relevant including the dog that was needlessly killed. Though I’m sure the e/acc crowd don’t count it as a “real” death even though the dog really died.
- agildehaus 3y ago
  Waymo claims the dog was fully occluded by a parked car before it ran into the street, giving the vehicle and a safety driver at the wheel no time to react. Not sure why you're focusing on this event. They're talking about miles with no safety driver.

Sure but the news outlet headline is ‘only three minor incidents’ when in fact they killed a dog. It’s an act of not including all the information in a report about safety.

persolb 3y ago
That's an issue with the headline; not Waymo. The Waymo blog post is clear they are comparing their robo-only-driver with human-only-drivers.
- choppaface 3y ago
  The Waymo blog post goes so far as to talk about human under-reporting of crashes, so it's only fair that Waymo call out their under-reporting of fatalities. It's suspect to claim the AI is better than the human when a notable fatality happened with a human behind the wheel of the exact same vehicle. Waymos have also hit people / bikers but magically the safety driver was always at fault.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    There's good reasons to count robo-only miles. The other measure is confounded in both directions: - Safety drivers prevent incidents - Safety drivers cause incidents Since the human+robo isn't the intended deployment mode, the only reason to count its numbers would be if there wasn't statistical power any other way. And that's no longer true.
    - choppaface 3y ago
      A robo-only study is fine, but it’s misleading to hide that the human-supervised treatment has injuries and fatalities.
      - bombcar 3y ago
        I’m also unsure how a safety driver affects the robo driving unless it’s an entirely separate program or the safety driver is pressing the “damn the dogs full speed ahead” button. In my perhaps naive view a safety driver failing to act and a robo driver should be identical.
        mlyle 3y ago
        e.g. one of the most significant Waymo incidents in autonomous mode was a human driver falling asleep, bumping the gas pedal, and disengaging autonomy. Comparing robo-only miles has the advantage of not considering incidents like this, and also not considering incidents where the safety driver prevented harm. It also prevents accusations of "you're claiming human Waymo drivers caused these accidents that you've omitted and are lying" because then they're counting 100% of miles driven without humans in the car.
        choppaface 3y ago
        Waymo calls out the under-reporting of human accidents and yet that’s exactly what they’re doing by ignoring their safety driver incidents that include a fatality.
        mlyle 3y ago
        What safety driver accident included a fatality? You're not obscuring talking about the dog with "a fatality", are you? Egads. From looking at past Waymo data, you get similar numbers (a few more incidents, but a lot more miles driven) with safety drivers included. They're just noisier and more subject to dispute.
        choppaface 3y ago
        Exactly, the numbers are subject to dispute, so this is a press release and the whole dataset is relevant including the dog that was needlessly killed. Though I’m sure the e/acc crowd don’t count it as a “real” death even though the dog really died.
agildehaus 3y ago
Waymo claims the dog was fully occluded by a parked car before it ran into the street, giving the vehicle and a safety driver at the wheel no time to react. Not sure why you're focusing on this event. They're talking about miles with no safety driver.